The Guardian’s Dana Nuccitelli uses pseudo-science to libel Dr. John Christy

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

One Dana Nuccitelli, a co-author of the 2013 paper that found 0.5% consensus to the effect that recent global warming was mostly manmade and reported it as 97.1%, leading Queensland police to inform a Brisbane citizen who had complained to them that a “deception” had been perpetrated, has published an article in the British newspaper The Guardian making numerous inaccurate assertions calculated to libel Dr John Christy of the University of Alabama in connection with his now-famous chart showing the ever-growing discrepancy between models’ wild predictions and the slow, harmless, unexciting rise in global temperature since 1979.

The chart, described by Nuccitelli as “simply another example of cherry picked data … presented in a multiply misleading way”, shows his comments. Each comment is then given in more detail in bold face, followed by the truth in Roman face.

clip_image002

1. “The data are misleadingly misaligned” to start in 1979, so as “to visually exaggerate any difference between the models and data”. Instead, Mr Nuccitelli opines that they should have been aligned to a common baseline some decades in length.

Altering the baselines does not alter the trends. Nevertheless, to test Mr Nucccitelli’s allegation that Dr Christy had “misleadingly misaligned” the data, trends on the models’ predictions (red), satellites’ observations (green) and radiosondes’ measurements (blue) were expressed as centennial-equivalent warming rates of 2.22, 1.00 and 0.86 Celsius degrees respectively. The warming rate predicted by the models is thus some 2.22.5 times the warming rates observed by the satellites and radiosondes. The graph, therefore, correctly reflects a real and widening discrepancy between prediction and observation. Note also that the CMIP5 predictions were made in about 2010, so that nearly all the red curve represents hindcasts: yet still the models’ trend is excessive.

2. “No uncertainty ranges are shown whatsoever”. When they are taken into account, “the observations are consistent with the range of model projections”.

Data since 1979 for the CMIP5 models were not to hand. However, in 1990 IPCC (AR1, p. xxiv), on the basis of “substantial confidence” that the models on which it relied had captured all essential features of the climate, predicted near-linear warming of 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] Celsius degrees over the 36 years 1990-2025, equivalent to 2.78 [1.94, 4.17] Cº/century. The boundary between the two zones, marked with the red needle in the clock-graph below, is the IPCC’s then best prediction: warming equivalent to about 2.8 C°/century by now.

The very wide range of predictions made by the IPCC is shown as orange and red regions. The observed warming on the RSS and UAH satellite datasets, again expressed as centennial equivalents, is shown by the two green needles. The HadCRUT4 dataset, to Dr Jones’ credit, publishes its combined measurement, coverage and bias uncertainties, which are about 0.16 Celsius degrees either side of the central estimate. The satellite uncertainties are smaller. It is plain that there is no overlap whatsoever between the exaggerated predictions made by IPCC in 1990 and the rates of global warming since then shown by the satellites.

clip_image004

3. “Observational data disagreements are hidden,” because “Christy’s graph also averages together multiple different observational datasets, which aren’t in terribly close agreement.”

In the present context, disagreements between trends on the RSS and UAH satellite datasets, for instance, would only be material if either of the datasets showed a trend close to the trend on the models’ predictions: otherwise, such differences would be inconsequential when set against the far wider difference between the trend on each observational dataset and the trend on the models’ predictions.

To test whether the two satellite datasets “aren’t in terribly close agreement”, their spline-curves and trends from 1979-2015 were separately determined and plotted. Results showed that the two curves are visibly in reasonable agreement.

To verify this, copy each graph on to a PowerPoint slide, start the presentation and then use the up and down arrows in rapid succession to make a blink-comparator.

Their centennial-equivalent trends are within a tenth of a degree of one another, whereas the differences between each of the two observed trends and the model-predicted trend are each an order of magnitude greater than the difference between them.

clip_image006

clip_image008

4. “The chart isn’t peer-reviewed or easily reproducible”, in that “Christy doesn’t say which observational data sets he’s averaging together”.

Mr Nuccitelli did not email Dr Christy and simply ask for the information. On one occasion when I asked Dr Christy for some data to assist me in a paper I was writing, I received the requested data within 24 hours. My questions about the data were answered promptly, courteously, fully and helpfully. Furthermore, the chart is plainly labeled indicating that it was prepared using the online and publicly available Climate Explorer program and data maintained by the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.

Had Mr Nuccitelli done a little homework, he would have been able to find the following widely-circulated graph that actually lists 73 of the models used by Dr Christy, and shows IPCC’s ever-increasing confidence in the “consensus” proposition that recent global warming was mostly manmade. In fact, as Mr Nuccitelli knows full well (for his own data file of 11,944 climate science papers shows it), the “consensus” is only 0.5%. But that is by the bye: the main point here is that it is the trends on the predictions compared with those on the observational data that matter, and, on all 73 models, the trends are higher than those on the real-world data.

clip_image010

5. “We don’t live on Mount Everest: the average elevation of the bulk atmosphere shown in Christy’s graph is 25,000 feet, which is just below the peak of Mount Everest, and not far below the elevation at which commercial aircraft generally fly. The temperature at such high elevations isn’t very relevant to humans.”

Mr Nuccitelli seems unaware that IPCC (2007), following Santer (2003), regarded the atmosphere six to eight miles up as highly relevant to humans: for that was the altitude of the model-predicted tropical mid-troposphere “hot spot”, the supposed “fingerprint” of manmade warming. The “hot spot” was supposed to warm at twice or thrice the tropical surface rate:

clip_image012

clip_image014

The models were as wrong about this as about everything else. There is no “hot spot”, as the following graph from Karl et al. (2006) shows.

clip_image016

If, therefore, Santer and IPCC had been correct that the “hot spot” was a fingerprint of anthropogenic global warming, the absence of the “hot spot” would have been the end of the profitable climate scam. However, the models and those who profit from their bizarre predictions were as wrong about this as they are about their other global-temperature predictions.

The truth is that the “hot spot” ought to appear if there is any significant warming of the atmosphere, and that its absence in real-world radiosonde measurements, shown in Karl’s graph, provides powerful confirmation that the satellite lower-troposphere datasets, rather than the surface tamperature datasets that Mr Nuccitelli criticizes Dr Christy (keeper of the UAH satellite dataset) for not showing on his graph, are accurate in showing little or no warming over the past two decades.

Furthermore, since the rate of warming diminishes with altitude, the effect of including the mid-troposphere with the lower troposphere in Dr Christy’s graph is actually to show a discrepancy between models’ predictions and real-world observations that is somewhat smaller than it would have been if the analysis had been confined to the lower troposphere alone.

Mr Nuccitelli also seems unaware that no small reason why John Christy’s graph shows temperature changes in the combined mid-troposphere and lower troposphere is that these are the zones in which the radiosondes take their readings.

6. “The rest of the global warming data show climate models are accurate. … For example, climate models have done an excellent job predicting how much temperatures at the Earth’s surface would warm.”

To test this remarkable assertion, the predictions of medium-term global warming made by the IPCC in 1990, 1995 and 2001 (red needles) were compared with the observed warming rates reported by three terrestrial (blue needles) and two satellite (green needles) datasets. The results showed that over each timescale – 26, 21 and 15 years respectively – the models had very greatly over-predicted the warming rate.

clip_image018

7. “And then there’s ocean heating. … Climate models are doing a very good job predicting the rate at which the oceans are heating up.”

Mr Nuccitelli appears unaware that in the 11 full years of ARGO bathythermograph data that are available at the time of writing, from 2004-2014, the rate of warming of the upper mile and a quarter of the ocean was equivalent to just 1 Celsius degree every 430 years, as the graph of ARGO data shows.

clip_image020

Furthermore, the temperature profile at different strata shows little or no warming at the surface and an increasing warming rate with depth, raising the possibility that, contrary to Mr Nuccitelli’s theory that the atmosphere is warming the ocean, the ocean is instead being warmed from below, perhaps by some increase in the largely unmonitored magmatic intrusions into the abyssal strata from the 3.5 million subsea volcanoes and vents most of which Man has never visited or studied, particularly at the mid-ocean tectonic divergence boundaries, notably the highly active boundary in the eastern equatorial Pacific.

How good a job are the models really doing in their attempts to predict global temperatures? Here are a few more examples:

clip_image022

clip_image024

clip_image026

Mr Nuccitelli’s scientifically illiterate attempts to challenge Dr Christy’s graph are accordingly misconceived, inaccurate and misleading.

A report of the inaccuracies should be sent to the editor of The Guardian with a request for an explanation, for the inaccuracies, delivered in the snide, supercilious tone that is Mr Nuccitelli’s disfiguring trademark, are calculated to be unfairly damaging to Dr Christy’s reputation as a scientist.

In the event that the editor fails to take appropriate action against Mr Nuccitelli and his low brand of yellow journalism, the case should be referred to the newspaper editors’ watchdog body by way of a formal complaint, whereupon The Guardian will be compelled to correct its inaccuracies.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/feb/19/republicans-favorite-climate-chart-has-some-serious-problems

183 thoughts on “The Guardian’s Dana Nuccitelli uses pseudo-science to libel Dr. John Christy

  1. Dana’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer…he’s more like a plastic spork…riding a scooter. :)

    Wasn’t there a guy here yesterday named Dan that was all in a huff about defamation laws and such? I wonder if his “funds” are available to be used against Dana’s attack on Dr. Christy’s work? (sarc)

  2. The Guardian used to be a really good newspaper. Until it discovered global warming a couple of years ago – rather late in the game, but they jumped in with both feet and now they won’t shut up about it, while real crises go unreported. It doesn’t have my respect any more. I wouldn’t bother complaining to their editors or their board – they will just twist your words in a prominent rebuttal of your complaint, and try to make you (whoever wants to make the complaint) look like a Neanderthaler.

    • No, it was never a really good newspaper – it always had a distinct undeclared socialist bias and was so full of typos that it was universally known as “The Grauniad”

      • The Guardian is UK Labour Party’s newspaper. There is nothing “undeclared” about it left-wing bias.

        It does do some outstanding journalism and is active in opposing government and spy agency over-reach, opposing gagging of the press etc.

        Sadly, their usual jounalistic standards seem to thrown out of the window when covering climate. There is an almost daily stream of factually incorrect claims that they decline to correct when they are pointed out.

        Should anyone wish to point out factual inaccuracies the readers’ editor can be contacted at:
        guardian.readers@guardian.co.uk

        Abuse will just be ignored , so at least take the time to present a credible criticism.

        http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/04/paris-climate-talks-what-difference-will-temperature-rises-really-make

        If anyone wants an example of how completely screwed up and ignorant they are on science : cite this article, which claims that in a 4C warmer world ocean pH will decrease by 109% !!

        That would take it into negative pH range , clearly they do not even have high school science knowledge to see how absurd that claim is.

        Furthermore they attribute the garbage to the IPCC / Met Office at the bottom of the article.

        Scientific nonsense and false attribution of their own stupidity.

      • Yeah, anyone outside of the U.K. who would like to try and comprehend or anticipate what the Guardian’s editorial position would be should simply ask themselves, “what would the Kremlin wish for?”
        So, then we should expect the Guardian to support such nonsense as western unilateral nuclear disarmament (tick), a curb on the powers and scope of western intelligence (tick), the dismantling of the traditions of family cohesion, heterosexual preference, judeo-christian religious dominance, military spending (tick, for all of those) the disruption of the mechanisms of free market capitalism, (tick) and the expansion of state spending towards the ultimate dream of 100% of GDP being spent by the state – i.e. centralized state control and communism (tick).
        As usual however, the western useful idiots have no idea where these brilliant modern ideas all came from…

      • Yes, it’s worth going back and reading about how Malcolm Muggeridge, who worked at the Guardian in the 30’s tried to warn the Western world about the forced famine in the Ukraine and was forced to quit the newspaper for his troubles.

    • If you listen, you can hear the ticking…as the clock counts down…to the Guardian’s demise into yet another online news outlet. Tick…tick…tick…

  3. Mostly libel laws do not really get into scientific disputes in the US. Several clear cases of libel have been dismissed, largely as the judge did not understand any science (eg Lott v. Levitt).

  4. The guardian is seemingly incapable of correcting or retracting any non-factual nonsense that it publishes.
    It is still possible to view their declaration that “Australasia has hottest 60 years in a millennium”.
    Even though the paper upon which this claim was based, was retracted within hours of publication.
    The link in their article carries a person to the place where the Gergis paper no longer exists.
    The paper was retracted because it was scientifically flawed, or wrong, in ordinary terms.
    But, the Guardian is only interested in the promotion of the original alarmist deception.
    Because, as the great psychologist Lewandowsky (sarc) once demonstrated, “lies are likely to stick in your mind and resist information that debunks them”.
    And nobody has made better use of that realization than Lew, Nutticelli, Cook and their chosen and compliant propaganda spouting mouthpiece, the Grauniad.
    Here is the article based upon the retracted Gergis paper. Check the link:
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/may/17/australasia-hottest-60-years-study

    • frog

      I doubt the Guardian is in the business (and I mean BUSINE$$) of “facts” – they only want “circulation”.

      re: “…as the great psychologist Lewandowsky (sarc) once demonstrated, “lies are likely to stick in your mind and resist information that debunks them” – yea; so did Goebbels.

      • They get very little circulation which is why it is making big losses every year. If it wasn’t for all the copies the BBC buys to ensure everyone is on message it would be in big trouble.

    • The Guardian also ‘”protects” their readers from an other points of view. After posting civil responses with links to data that negate their reporting, I was blocked from any further posts over a year ago. Slate magazine and Scientific American has done the same, shameful behavior by any standard.

      • Mr Allen points out a very typical feature of the Guardian. It does not believe in free speech or democratic debate: only in proselytizing for whatever hard-Left causes are currently fashionable. Its print edition will soon go the way of the “Independent”, Britain’s other unlamented Communist daily. Thereafter, its online presence will carry less and less weight. If it had made some attempt to tell the truth, it would have stemmed the precipitate decline in its circulation, but the ideologues who edit and write for it preferred Communism to survival. They will end up with neither.

  5. Quite right, Dana: ““We don’t live on Mount Everest: the average elevation of the bulk atmosphere shown in Christy’s graph is 25,000 feet, which is just below the peak of Mount Everest” – but then again, neither do we live in the depths of the oceans, even though “Climate models are doing a very good job predicting the rate at which the oceans are heating up”. So, which is it, Dana, wet or dry? Where do you live?

    BTW, Dana: ‘Predicting’? Get with the program; isn’t it supposed to be ‘Projecting’?

    • “… we don’t live on Mt Everest …” but the oceans (0 – 700m) which are presumably well observed are heating up nicely as predicted according to Nuccitelli.

      • Chris: Your comment is not capable of being understood. At its most basic level I have no idea whether you are supporting or denying Nucitelli’s premise. I’d appreciate you expand on it.

      • Chris:
        We must have missed where Nuttifruticelli predicted the oceans would warm at a rate equivalent to 1°C over 430 years.

        Please provide the exact link where Dana manages this amazing bit of prognostication? While you’re at it, please provide Dana’s explanation/prediction for why the ocean is warming at depth, but not at the surface.

        Please note that Dana is not known for honesty nor attention to accuracy; e.g. his parlaying 0.5% consensus as 97.1%.

      • Chris did you just direct us to research conducted by someone in the pay of BIG OIL???
        http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/07/dana-nuccitellis-paycheck-funded-by.html
        Dana Nuccitelli is an alarmist blogger at Skeptical Science and The Guardian. He is also co-author of the falsely manufactured Cook et al. “97% consensus” paper. A shocking revelation was that Nuccitelli’s employer Tetra Tech is funded by “Big Oil”. Further research reveals that Tetra Tech is specifically being funded by ExxonMobil to lead the design and construction of their new 386-acre campus north of Houston, Texas. Tetra Tech was also hired by ExxonMobil to draft an environmental assessment for the Montana Department of Transportation to transport giant oilfield equipment modules through Montana to the Kearl Oil Sands in Alberta.

        During a lawsuit that involved the National Wildlife Federation and the Sierra Club, Tetra Tech demonstrated their loyalty to “Big Oil” by testifying in defense of ExxonMobil’s proposal. “Hydrogeologist Bill Craig of Tetra Tech spent the morning on the stand as a defense witness called by MDT and Imperial Oil/ExxonMobil. Tetra Tech was hired by the oil company to draft the environmental assessment MDT required for the Kearl module project” Hypocritically, Nuccitelli railed against the development of Alberta’s oil sands, while simultaneously cashing his paycheck ExxonMobil helped pay for.

        First rule of Climate Alarmists is ‘Never-Believe-Anything-From-Someone-From-Big-Oil’ You loose.

      • LECTRIX, LLC, Merchant Transmission Developer

        MATL – Montana Alberta Tie Line
        SATL – Saskatchewan Alberta Tie Line

        “LECTRIX owns a controlling interest in Roeder & Company, LLC. Roeder & Company, LLC is a tax credit syndicator (new markets and renewable energy tax credits), and renewable consultant.”

        LECTRIX is an Oregon company.

        “New Markets” is a U.S. Federal grant program.

        This is science?

      • They are only warming up if you assume that a few dozen sensors are capable of measuring the temperature of the entire ocean to a few thousandths of a degree.

    • +1, Mr. Passfield.
      ******************************

      @ Anyone confused by D.N.’s propaganda: Just ask him, “Now where exactly did AGW proponents conjecture warming would start to happen?”

      (Hint: It wasn’t “where we live.”)

      (FYI: It hasn’t happened yet.)

      Formerly Confused: “Well, then why in BLAZES is he going on so?”

      Science Realist: CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED. Bwha, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaa!
      #(:))

      FC: Yeah, okay, but, why does he waste his time?

      SR: ££

      “Follow the yellow brick road.”

    • “We don’t live on Mount Everest: the average elevation of the bulk atmosphere shown in Christy’s graph is 25,000 feet, which is just below the peak of Mount Everest”

      Soooo….Dana is rejecting the only truly global measurements we have have because “We don’t live there”!?
      So is he saying the only measurements that matter are where we do live? Then the most accurate measurements, to him, would be those most under the influence of the Urban Heat Island effect?
      (That is where people live.)

      • For some odd reason I suddenly had a picture in my mind of Mr. Everest, snow all the way up except at the very top where it had all melted and bare rock was exposed.

        Upper atmospheric heating, global warming proved!!!!

        Perhaps I need a doctor.

        Eugene WR Gallun

        .

      • Sounds as if the temperatures of the oceans are now a “no no” in climate change as we don’t live there. Bad for Karl 2015. Bob Tisdale can retire. What nonsense.

      • I mostly live in my house, office, and various malls. The temperature ranges from about 68 F to 75 F year-round. The trend line is flat.

    • “Chris: Your comment is not capable of being understood …”.
      ===============================
      I agree with your comment re Nuccitelli, I was being sardonic, one of my failings.

      • Chris:
        Apologies to you!

        While your remark did strike me as not in character, I completely missed any sarcastic sardonic hints. A sometimes failing many excellent critics have until they blurt out, “I’m being sarcastic!”, to us denser specimens.

        Keep up the wit!

    • Possibly he is suggesting that atmospheric data are not the appropriate dat set to use. Surface temperatures would be a better metric.

  6. I must say, milord, that although I admire you as a great source of wisdom, I’m not a big fan of the clock graphs.

    • I must say, Michael D, that although I abhor anonymous internet popups as wasters of pixels on my computer screen, I’m not a big fan of trolls who say they don’t like effective graphical presentations.

      • I abhor anonymous internet popups as wasters of pixels on my computer screen

        Mr. Courtney,
        I respectfully submit that some of us feel strongly the need to retain some anonymity in order to not have our livelihoods stolen from us by those in power because we don’t subscribe to the obviously wrong consensus.

        I believe the Federalist Papers arguing for the ratification of the US Constitution, possibly the most powerful and uplifting document defining a method of governance in history were published anonymously (Publius) rather than under the authors’ names (Madison, Hamilton, Jay).

        I believe that the content of a post should be evaluated on its merit rather than by the “title on the cover”.

        …just sayin’

      • Are you one of those guys that expects consensus?
        To be honest, I too don’t like clock charts. That doesn’t take away from the fact that I loved the article.

      • Boulder Skeptic:

        I did assess “the content of a post” from the anonymous internet popup posting as Michael D and I responded to it in THE SAME MANNER and using as similar language to it as possible.

        From behind a screen of anonymity you have waved two ‘red herrings’ in attempt to support “Michael D”. As I said, I abhor anonymous internet popups as wasters of pixels on my computer screen.

        Richard

      • Reading for comprehension…

        …in attempt to support “Michael D”

        Nice try. I don’t see any words where I was supporting Michael D’s comment about clocks. I simply made the point that the anonymity issue, about which you generalized, is more complex than you appear to realize and is in some cases justified. Not all of us are in such a comfortable position as you appear to be.

        It appears that others were trying to help you gain some understanding of your overreaction to his comment as well, to no avail. I’m done.

      • Boulder Skeptic:

        Your excuses for posting ‘red herrings’ in support of an anonymous troll end with you writing something true; viz. you write “I’m done”.

        Richard

      • Boulder Skeptic: Richard has a history of getting bent out of shape whenever he finds out that people are still allowed to have opinions he disagrees with.

    • Yes Michael, I find them too revealing. I like an obfuscatory upside down trend chart in femto joules per pentad warming on the right hand side.

    • michael d

      What am I missing here? A guy makes a single post on a long thread and it looks like a respectful & civil comment about personal preference for data presentation and gets kicked like a rabid dog.

      Not good.

      • I’m with you, Chip.

        Michael’s “not a big fan” and Richard starts abhorring him. There is the possibility of further escalation of extravagant expression since Richard takes swipes at not only the semi-anonymous Michael but at each of the other, many anonymous commenters, and, in addition, those that don’t share his taste in graphical representation.
        Civility serves to shield individuals from the unpleasant reality that they are not as tough as they think they are.

      • Chip Javert and mebbe:

        What are you doing, trolls of the world unite?

        The completely anonymous Michael D made a ‘side swipe’ at the above essay, and I replied to that in the same manner and using as similar language to it as possible.

        You are you claiming my reply “kicked {Michael D} like a rabid dog”. Well, if so then the anonymous Michael D certainly deserved more than my mild reply because my mild reply was to his/her/their/its having “kicked {Viscount Monckton} like a rabid dog.

        Richard

      • Anyone who doesn’t agree with Richard is a troll. Be careful, it won’t be long until he labels you a neo-national socialist.

      • MarkW:

        Your loathsome fascist beliefs are your problem. Stop trying to smear me because of them.

        Richard

    • I like the speedometer graphs. It is an excellent “moment in time” presentation where the other graphs portray movement in time.

  7. It seems like ages since I’ve heard anything of this psuedo scientist – maybe he just wanted to be talked about yet again?

  8. 1. Yes, Dana has deliberately misaligned the graphs, stretching the scale etc to try to hide the discrepancy….intentionally misleading for the gullible.(you)

    2. There is so much range in the climate models that they are a farce.. yet they STILL miss the side of the barn.

    3. Only the much adjusted Ratpac balloon series (in the hands of rabid alarmists) doesn’t agree with the satellites. The ONLY surface data in the world that is UNTAMPERED, un UHI affected, and evenly spread matches the satellite data trends almost exactly. This confirms the satellite data extraction algorithms. Its called “validation” something which NO climate model or mal-adjusted surface data set has managed.

    4. Peer review is for journal publication, nothing more.

    5. The AGW hypothesis says that the atmosphere should warm faster than the surface… FAIL !!

    6, Matching to their deliberately fabricated temperature data is meaningless, especially when the likes of Mann is in charge of the data and modelling.

    They are LYING about the sea level rise, they show an acceleration in the tide gauges.. there is NONE. and look at the massive range they predict.. that isn’t science, its pure supposition .. and they still have to bend the data to just sneak inside it. What a FARCE !!!

    • “4. Peer review is for journal publication, nothing more.”

      Some people are surprised to find that Albert Einstein only had one paper peer reviewed and it was a minor one later in his fabulous career. (or so I have been told — even I am not old enough to remember the early 1900s)

      • All it is, is someone deciding if they think an article should be entered into the literature.

        Choose the right someone at a journal…. and all sorts of crap can get through. (as AGW has amply proven)

        ….. and all sort of good science can be blocked.

      • Peer review has come to take the place of editor review as the number of papers has grown way to high for editors to keep up alone.

      • “Peer review has come to take the place of editor review as the number of papers has grown way to high for editors to keep up alone.”

        If peer review was only a way to “keep up” then the reviewers would be known publicly and so would their comments. The “team” admitted using “peer review” to stop their “enemies” and reward their “friends”.

        “Peer review” is the great enemy of science and of the people. It is a way to enforce group think and obedience to the party line. It is even better than controlling who gets grants.

      • One of my favourite journals, though I no longer subscribe, is the Journal of the American Statistical Association. Most papers are reviewed in the normal way, but they used to have a practice where a paper deemed particularly noteworthy would have “comments” by two or more separate (named) authors/groups, and a “rejoinder” at the end. As a reader, I found this extremely valuable. The comments were in effect mini-papers themselves and provided amazingly helpful context.

        The problem with this is that it is extremely demanding of the reviewers’ time: they not only have to read and understand the original paper, they have to write several pages of publication-quality response giving extra background, appropriate criticism, and alternatives. This takes time, and the publication cycle is already slow, and as someone who has both reviewed papers and been on an editorial paper, I can tell you I was never paid a single cent.

        Einstein published a number of papers in Annalen der Physik. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annalen_der_Physik says that “theoretician Max Planck (1907–1943, had been associate editor from 1895).

        In [those] times, peer-review was not yet standard. Einstein, for example, just sent his manuscripts to Planck who then subsequently published them.” I think we can safely say that Planck read the papers first. “Peer review” exists in order to cope with a torrent of submissions not all good.

    • AndyG55: it isn’t pure supposition. That would have some legitimacy. It is deliberate manipulation. That is fraudulent.

  9. I agree that The Guardian should be required to explain the innacuracies in the piece, but any request should not be in a snide supercilious tone. Any communication should be made in a polite scientific way. No need to decend to their level.
    But the way their circulation figures are going, how long are they going to be around anyway?

      • A strange but predictable phenomenon and I guess they are going the way of the Independent with a switchover to online. They have a prominent online presence much like the Mail and the Telegraph do but what is funny is that by allowing comments almost every piece of bovid ordure they put out gets shredded in the comments. What to do? Stop allowing comments in which case people will not even bother to click on what has at that point become a very obvious propaganda blog or continue with comments enabled and be made an embarrassing laughing stock out of? There is one other mode they could of course adopt and that would be to report the news in a fair and unbiased way. Nah – just kidding.

      • Yes, a few British papers allow comments these days. Virtually none in the US do this online. Or if they do it like the NYT, it is very rare and only for ‘social’ type stories, not science.

      • “Yes, a few British papers allow comments these days. Virtually none in the US do this online. Or if they do it like the NYT, it is very rare and only for ‘social’ type stories, not science.”

        That has not been my experience.

  10. It looks like you will have to file an offical compliant with authorities. I’d also include references to the other more erroneous articles, to show the evident trend of misinformation and disregard for the truth.

  11. …the case should be referred to the newspaper editors’ watchdog body by way of a formal complaint, whereupon The Guardian will be compelled to correct its inaccuracies.

    The UK has a regulator for journalism. But it does not apply to the Guardian.

    This is because the Guardian is not interested in the truth or accuracy of it’s reporting. As such it has refused to be regulated.

    This is acceptable because the Guardian has chosen to cease to be a newspaper
    It is now, at best, a source of comedy.

    • They need a disclaimer: “The contents of this paper are for entertainment purposes only”
      Sadly, I can think of a dozen papers that warning would apply to, and more than one TV news network.

  12. 2. “No uncertainty ranges are shown whatsoever”. When they are taken into account, “the observations are consistent with the range of model projections”.

    Translation: Because our lowest projection is within shooting distance of the observations, you have to believe that our highest projections are realistic.

    I’m pretty sure there is a formal logic error here but I have no clue what it would be.

  13. We don’t live on mount Everest, but neither does TLT. It is weighted to the surface.

    The weighting function can be graphically averaged to a median elevation of about 11,300 feet. Most people don’t live there either. Personally spent a lot of time above that climbing.

    Carbonists seem to be having a hard time understanding that the surface thermometers can warm from energy that is taken from a higher elevation. The primary CO2 bands have been saturated since before the industrial revolution, probably even the last glacial maximum. Adding CO2 lowers the altitude of extinction and brings the energy closer to the surface.

    Warming our thermometers cannot be defined as warming when “the planet” the energy is merely stolen from above.

    • Which weighting function is that? It does not look like either RSS nor UAH5 nor UAH6. The fact that these three products cannot agree on the definition of TLT is curious.

      • That particular weighting function is UAH. Don’t remember which version. Got if from Roy Spencer’s website maybe a year ago?

        There is no “one true” weighting function. They are measuring temperatures from near the surface to the lower stratosphere. The weighting is just a call. RSS has always been different, and even has different partitioning between levels. RSS has a TTT (total troposphere), UAH does not…

      • No it is not UAH. That looks like this,

        However your comment that there is “no one true weighting function” is correct and is in my opinion the primary problem with satellite based temperature measurements – there is no “one true” temperature – it is all models

    • We don’t live on mount Everest, but neither does TLT. It is weighted to the surface.

      But the chart in question is showing TMT.

      • The chart in question shows TLS, TMT, and TMT, assuming the chart in question is the one I posted. The graphic evaluation that derives a median weighting of 3.44 km is TLT (in red)

      • gymnosperm, sorry, by the chart in question I meant the one produced by Dr. John Christy in the main article, not the one showing the relative weighting function.

  14. Unfortunately it’ll take another ten years before the Guardian goes bust, so we might have to put up with that annoying scooter rider for a while yet.

    • J Martin

      Given current Guardian circulation of <200k (and declining) and their 40M on-line readers, it pretty much comes down to how much they earn for on-line advertising…

  15. Better just to ignore Nuccitelli. His type thrives on attention. Using logic to point out the flaws in his reasoning won’t change a thing about him.

    • Yes, indeed, Scott (another one! :) ).

      However…

      It is not D.N. for whom this post (and each of the many excellent comments – WAY TO GO, WUWT SCIENCE GIANTS!) was written.

      *************************************

      D.N. (on behalf of Big Wind, et. al.) sits at his microphone, shrieking year after year: “Sacrifices!! Herren, er, People! You must make sacrifices or our race will die!!!”

      Christopher Monckton and the Science Realists (on behalf of Truth) go on the air to broadcast: “Keep calm and carry on. Pay no attention to that man. He is telling you l1es.”

    • Correct someone like Danna wants attention. The only attention he can’t stand is mocking. It’s best to mock and humiliate him.

    • “Better just to ignore Nuccitelli. His type thrives on attention.” Sorry, m’man but you’ve just spewed m’tea up m’nose — meaning, y’think that ol’ “ain’t I smart!” Mockton is any different?

    • No one knows what Nuccitelli wants except him. I for one don’t give a rat’s rear end about what he wants, or what you think is “better” or best either.

      The flaw in YOUR logic is assuming that using logic to point out the flaws in his reasoning should only be done if it changes “a thing about him”.

  16. Excellence summary. Succinct observational, analysis based criticism of AGW and defense of Christy’s assertions. The warmists can keep their gig going as long as there is no significant cooling.

    The corollary to the analysis/observational facts (no tropical tropospheric hot spot, 18 years without warming when atmospheric CO2 is rising throughout the period) is that observation and analysis supports the assure that the majority warming in the last 150 years was not caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2.

    The following (the latitudinal warming paradox) is further observational proof that the warming in the last 150 years was not due to the increase in atmospheric CO2.

    As atmospheric CO2 is more or less evenly distributed in the atmosphere, the potential for the CO2 mechanism should be the same for all latitudes. As the greatest amount of long wave radiation is emitted in the tropics, the most amount of CO2 warming should have occurred in the tropics not high latitude regions, ignoring the fact that the absorption spectrum of water vapor and CO2 overlap which reduces the CO2 forcing by a factor 4 with most of the reduction occurring in the tropical regions.

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf

    Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
    The global atmospheric temperature anomalies of Earth reached a maximum in 1998 which has not been exceeded during the subsequent 10 years (William: 18 years and counting). The global anomalies are calculated from the average of climate effects occurring in the tropical and the extratropical latitude bands. El Niño/La Niña effects in the tropical band are shown to explain the 1998 maximum while variations in the background of the global anomalies largely come from climate effects in the northern extratropics. These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. (William: This observation indicates something is fundamental incorrect with the IPCC models, likely negative feedback in the tropics due to increased or decreased planetary cloud cover to resist forcing). However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback. (William: This indicates a significant portion of the 20th century warming has due to something rather than CO2 forcing.)

    ….The effects in the northern extratropics are not consistent with CO2 forcing alone.

    An underlying temperature trend of 0.062±0.010ºK/ decade was estimated from data in the tropical latitude band. Corrections to this trend value from solar and aerosols climate forcings are estimated to be a fraction of this value. The trend expected from CO2climate forcing is 0.070g ºC/decade, where g is the gain due to any feedback. If the underlying trend is due to CO2 then g ~1. Models giving values of greater than 1 would need a negative climate forcing to partially cancel that from CO2. This negative forcing cannot be from aerosols.

    These conclusions are contrary to the IPCC [2007] statement: “[M]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

    Comment:
    The 1 dimensional no feedback calculations for the expected warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 were done with a dry atmosphere and ignored the increased convection caused by the CO2 increase. Redoing the 1 dimensional calculations with using a conservative estimate of water vapor in the atmosphere and reducing the lapse rate due to increased convection reduces the surface warming for doubling of atmospheric CO2, no feedbacks by roughly a factor of 16 from 1.2C to 0.075C.

    As the CO2 forcing in logarithmic half of the warming 0.075/2 or 0.037C can be attributed to the increase in atmospheric CO2. Therefore 95% of the 0.8C warming observed in the last 150 years is due to the solar cycle increase.

    As there are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record that correlate to solar cycle changes, the logical suspect for the cause of the warming in the last 150 years should have been solar cycle changes.
    Ocean sediment analysis indicates that regions of the North Atlantic were roughly 10C colder than current, 400 years ago in the coldest period of the Little Ice age. The fact that regions of the Atlantic ocean were anomalously colder than current requires an explanation and is further proof the cause of the warming in the last 150 years was not due to the increase in atmospheric CO2.

    There is a great increase in dust from the Mongolian desert deposited on the Greenland ice sheet during the cyclic cold periods. The increase in dust is attributed to an increase in speed of the jet stream. There has very recently been an increased in the speed of the jet stream which the media is now reporting. An increase in wind speed over the oceans will caused increased evaporation cooling.

    GCR is now the highest ever record for this period of the solar cycle. What is inhibiting the GCR cooling (all else being the same there will be more cloud cover when GCR is high) is solar wind bursts from coronal holes. The solar wind bursts create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which in turns cause there to be a current flow from high latitude regions to the equator. The movement of current causes cloud changes 40 to 60 degrees and at the equator.

    This is what to expect next if the sun was the cause of the warming in the last 150 years and if the solar cycle has been interrupted.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

    • About increased wind speed especially in the Atlantic regions: is it not surprising that the New World was discovered during this time period and sailing between Europe and the New World took off like a rocket? This is when my own family came over, during the Little Ice Age, to trade in beaver pelts.

      • What I find surprising is that you seem to think that increased wind speed, “especially in the Atlantic” was some kind of requisite/determining factor in both the discovery of, the New World, and rapid increases in sailing from Europe to that New World.

        If no New World had been discovered, there would have been nothing to “sail between”. And the jet stream flows FROM the US and TOWARD Europe, so increasing jet stream speeds don’t exactly work in favor of rapid sailing from Europe to the US.

        I’m suggesting plunder and colonizing a new continent were far more relevant factors than wind speed.

  17. Nucitelli’s assertion about averaging satellites and sondes hiding large divergences is either gross ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation. The 3 satellite records (NOAA has STAR and it agrees generally with UAH and RSS) and the four sonde datasets can all be found together in slide 20 of the joint NOAA Karl/NASA Schmidt press conference Jan 20 announcing 2015 as hottest evah! Available at both the NCEI and GISS websites.
    His complaint about lack of error bars around the climate model ensemble mean is statistical nonsense. You can compute an ensemble mean and graph the result as Christy did. But it is statistically meaningless since the runs do not all come from the same model population. Apples and oranges make fruit salad. Scooter Nuttercelli whining about lack of graphed statisical error uncertainty is equivalent to complaining about not dividing by zero.
    Guardian’s editors allowing such wrong silliness says all anyone needs to know about why its readership is in such sharp decline.

    • You are correct. There was a final version of the ‘experimental protocol’ published IIRC 2011. The first mandatory run to be submitted to CMIP5 was the 30 year minimum hindcast. Modelers had the initialization options of average Dec 2005 or Jan 1 2006. Same initialization for all subsequent ‘projections’.

  18. There are many reasons why the twit Dana Nuccitelli is wrong and the climate computer games “models” are wrong.

    One reason the models are wrong is that they don’t model much other than CO2 very well. How can a model that does not do clouds or atmospheric moisture predict future climate? (just one example of many)

    Mainly though, they have their entire speculation wrong (the CO2 delusion does not even rise up to “theory” level) Okulaer (Kristian) took a look at theory vs. observation a while back and it is a very informative short read. I recommend it:

    “How AGW isn’t happening in the real Earth system …” https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/11/15/how-agw-isnt-happening-in-the-real-earth-system/

      • Good to see you back Janice. I was busy teaching classes and missed that whole comment and replies. Thanks ever so much for the link. :-)

        I would only add that you matter to me here. You have (apparently) the time, knowledge, energy, and dedication to post much truth here. I always learn something from your posts (that I knew and forgot or that I never knew before)

        Keep up the good work.

      • Mark — you just proved that you must be an excellent teacher. Thank you, so much. Your affirmation makes me want to do my very best!

    • I always find it irksome when people – and particularly realists – describe CAGW as a theory. It is not a theory and it is furthermore grossly misleading to raise what amounts to nothing more than an ill-posed hypothesis to that lofty status. It is an outré fringe hypothesis which in thirty years of intense effort and funding which makes the Manhattan project look like an obscure side issue has failed each and every test before it. Each and every hurdle it attempts to heave its flyblown carcass over it hooks a foot and falls flat on its face and yet, the undead thing lurches on down the track propped up on all sides by its faithful prophets of doom. More properly it is an insult to call such a farce a hypothesis even.

    • markstoval on February 20, 2016 at 1:32 pm

      “There are many reasons why the twit Dana Nuccitelli is wrong and the climate computer games “models” are wrong.

      One reason the models are wrong is that they don’t model much other than CO2 very well. How can a model that does not do clouds or atmospheric moisture predict future climate? (just one example of many)”

      markstoval,

      It is even reasonably arguable that the models wrongly represent CO2, given the sensitivities are grossly wrong.

      John

  19. How is that big CO2 Hot Spot going over the Tropics, Nuccitelli? Also the CAGW hypothesis says that the atmosphere should warm faster than the surface. How is that working out, Nuccitelli?

  20. Alignment?
    You don’t need alignment. These climate models should be able to find the real temperature measured in Celcius. It is claimed they are based on real physics, so why is it so difficult to produce a real average temperature, or regional temperatures. It is not hard to figure out relative changes, when you make a lot of assumptions, but what is the real model baseline. The real world does not deal with anomalies, it works on real temperatures, especially near the freezing point of water.

    • SF, you are on target making a big point. In essay Models all the way Down I reproduced a peer reviewed papers chart showing actual modeled temperature hindcasts for both CMIP3 and CMIP5. That mess of discrepancies of +/- about 3-4 degrees C is completely hidden by converting each models actual to its own anomalies, then comparing only anomalies. A dirty warmunist trick to hide the truth about how bad the climate models actually are.

      • say what???

        Oh my. I thought I was paying very close attention and that’s the first I’ve heard this. I will delve into this point more and would very much appreciate pointers to references, but my already low opinion of climate models just got lower. And by the way I use models ALL THE TIME in my job and understand why validated models work and are useful and why junk models don’t. I’ve created physical models. I believe in models. But climate models are junk science.

        Thanks for this comment, ristvan.

  21. One issue with the models is that even if they had the physics correct, they are hind-casting to a heavily altered temperature data set.

    They will ALWAYS have a spurious warming trend built into them because of that.

    The fact that they stuff up or leave out major bits of the physics, just makes them even worse.

    The shear range of projections shows that they mostly have NO IDEA what they are doing,

    and even then, they can’t hit the side of a barn !

  22. “Furthermore, the temperature profile at different strata shows little or no warming at the surface and an increasing warming rate with depth, raising the possibility that, contrary to Mr Nuccitelli’s theory that the atmosphere is warming the ocean, the ocean is instead being warmed from below, perhaps by some increase in the largely unmonitored magmatic intrusions into the abyssal strata from the 3.5 million subsea volcanoes and vents most of which Man has never visited or studied, particularly at the mid-ocean tectonic divergence boundaries, notably the highly active boundary in the eastern equatorial Pacific”

    Apparently the science is settled on this subject as well – even for some skeptics. Calculations have been made on heat output of various volcanoes and multiplications made using what we know about submarine volcanism. The impact is considered insignificant

    There are number of potential heat sources and mediums, not just effusive basaltic styles found in MORs. The existence of floating pumice is evidence of explosive silicic eruptions of the type found at Yellowstone and the Taupo Volcanic Zone, New Zealand (both active). These are a very different animals. Also take into account hydrothermal systems

    We need to know ‘how insignificant’. Would it not have made sense to do some chemical analysis on the Eastern Pacific Warm Blob? Cheap at the price

    Accurate elimination is a powerful tool in science

  23. There once was a time when scientists were well known for being as critical of their own work as Nuccitelli is trying to be of Christy’s work. At that time Nuccitelli would have done his reputation quite some damage by getting his criticisms so wrong. Perhaps he can now turn his gaze on the work of the alarmists he tries to support. I won’t hold my breath.

    The first big lowlight for me is the attempted criticism for me that we don’t live where these measurements and predictions are made. The second is the criticism that the work is not peer reviewed. As if either of these things somehow invalidates the work.

    In my view the most appropriate response to Nuccitelli in both cases is to say well duh. Anything more sophisticated than that will not be comprehended by anybody who takes such feeble criticisms seriously.

  24. “…We don’t live on Mount Everest: the average elevation of the bulk atmosphere shown in Christy’s graph is 25,000 feet, which is just below the peak of Mount Everest, and not far below the elevation at which commercial aircraft generally fly. The temperature at such high elevations isn’t very relevant to humans…”

    Is he that stupid or just that much of a liar?

    Mt. Kilmanjaro is over 19,000 feet in elevation…where was Dana when skepticalscience was promoting the idea that 19,000 feet is relevant to humans?
    https://www.skepticalscience.com/mount-kilimanjaro-snow.htm

    Maybe Dana call point to peer-reviewed literature showing that 19,000 feet is relevant but 25,000 feet is not.

    • Mt. Kilmanjaro is over 19,000 feet in elevation…where was Dana when … 19,000 feet [was] relevant to humans?

      Michael Jankowski

      +1

  25. What I didn’t understand about the article is that they provided, as counter evidence, a plot from NASA’s Gavin Schmidt. This plot looked similar to the Christy plot they were criticizing! They both showed about a half degree discrepancy between climate model projections and measured data. Gavin’s plot showed the different data sets independently clearly demonstrating that they are quit similar and could be easily averaged as was done in the Christy plot. The Gavin plot was cited in the article as looking quite different than the Christy plot. That just isn’t so if you know how to read a plot. There were some small differences in the plots (one was yearly data and one was 5 year running mean) but nothing that contradicted that conclusions that Christy made in his congressional testimony. The article could only have its intended effect on people who do not know how to read a plot.

  26. I agree with your criticism of Nuccitelly in this paper. In particular, your point about the ocean being warmed from below is important. It has not been much discussed but based on sulfur dioxide layers in the ice core from Summit a case can be made that volcanic warming may have played a role in terminating the last ice age. There is one more thing, however, that you unfortunately got wrong, and that is showing a rising straight line from 1979 to present for both UAH and RSS to indicate steady warming. There is no steady warming there. It starts out with an 18 year hiatus that precedes the super El Nino in the eighties and nineties. And on the right there is the present hiatus, no steady warming that. I showed all this in 2010 as Figure 15 in my book “What Warming?” In between the two hiatuses stand the super El Nino and a step warming that started in 1999. In only three years it raised global temperature by a third of a degree Celsius and then stopped. By a chance coincidence, your graph “It’s official: the models have failed” gets it right. Accidentally, your horizontal zero level just happens to nicely outline the hiatus on the left that includes five El Nino peaks. All you need to do make the rest of it correct is to rise the horizontal straight line by a third of a degree where it covers the twenty-first century. I am generally not surprised that alarmists don’t read my book but being neglected by climate skeptics who need the information in it annoys me.

    • Arno, could it possibly be that the reasons your conclusions have been widely ignored is that they are shallow, poorly reasoned, devoid of scientific underpinnings, and Brett of parallelism with well-vetted global data?

    • John Christy and Roy Spencer are good, thoughtful scientists whose consciences do not allow them to enrich themselves at the expense of others by peddling doom-laden predictions on inadequate evidence. We are very lucky to have them. Long may they flourish!

      • So they are. Our team is lucky to have included Dr. Christy.

        I might also add that I thoroughly approve of your own top-down, simple method for projections.

  27. I guess the unsettled part of the debate is really all about CO2 climate sensitivity. Warmist say a doubling of CO2 would lead to >3 degrees increase in temperature. (And have published papers saying so.). Skeptics say it’s more like 1 degree. (And have also published papers saying so.). The IPCC sides with the warmist so because that’s what government pays them to do. Thus far reality has sided with the skeptics. All data fiddling aside.

  28. There are two reasons why the surface is warming more than the troposphere. One that I have mentioned before is surface albedo positive feedback, from reduction of snow and ice cover. The heat from increased absorption of solar radiation is at the surface.

    Another reason is that greenhouse gases receive the most warming radiation where it is most intense – closest to the surface. So an increase of greenhouse gases would cause the most atmospheric warming where thermal radiation is most intense, and farthest below the altitudes where greenhouse gases cause cooling by emitting some of their radiation directly into outer space.

    The predicted tropical upper troposphere hotspot is not theorized as being caused by greenhouse gases absorbing radiation there and causing warming. It is theorized as being caused by upward convection of increasingly warm and humid tropical air and a decrease of the lapse rate due to increased presence of water vapor. The problem there is that a positive cloud albedo feedback (which is predicted by IPCC) implies reduced relative humidity of the atmosphere. The models seem to be tuned to have feedbacks high enough to continue the rapid warming from the mid 1970s to shortly after 2000 – without consideration that some of this warming was from a natural cycle that since reversed.

    • You guys seem to be very good at “explaining” past behavior. I guess it’s predicting future behavior where your abilities are lacking.

  29. I’ve been following climate-change denialism for quite some time now, but there’s one lovely line in this article which I can’t let pass without pointing out how far-fetched its denial of the obvious and well-documented, well-vetted, and rigorously investigated science of global climate change has to go to hang on with the tiny fingernails of denial on the massive cliff of scientific truth.

    Here it is:

    “The ocean is instead being warmed from below, perhaps by some increase in the largely unmonitored magmatic intrusions into the abyssal strata from the 3.5 million subsea volcanoes and vents most of which Man has never visited or studied, particularly at the mid-ocean tectonic divergence boundaries, notably the highly active boundary in the eastern equatorial Pacific.”

    Oh, and I have also read that jujubes cause autism, and that lizard beings have infiltrated the Illuminati.

    • One skeptic/troll at last! (I was wandering where all the good trolls went, perhaps I still am.)

      Please post your chart of OHC from volcanism with estimates of the residence time of energy from volcanoes, thus the total energy content currently within the oceans by ocean basin, and the flux of said input since 1950.

  30. Any criticism that Cristy’s graph failed to show uncertainty ranges for the model runs and the observations, respectively, reinforces my belief that climate alarmists aren’t scientists so much as just professors playing on their computers. Uncertainty ranges on observations are real. They result from imprecision in instrumentation, or biases, or some other real physical phenomenon or system. Uncertainty ranges on climate model simulations do not represent measurement error, or any physical process at all. They represent no more than the manner in which a computer was programmed. To suggest that a graph – comparing an uncertainty range in observational data with some virtual uncertainty range in a computer simulation – would give you any useful information is a textbook example of the stupidity that results from living in the ivory towers of academia – a magical world where common sense is slowly sucked out of you because you never have to, well, actually demonstrate that you know what you’re talking about.

    • I agree that it would be pretty pointless to clutter a comparative chart like that with error ranges but don’t agree that you cannot provide sensible error estimates on model outputs. Why is it not sensible to apply the known accuracy ranges to model input parameters to generate an expected output accuracy range? I do that all the time.

      • You’re assuming that the model is already known to accurately simulate the behavior of the modeled system. Ultimately, the only relevant uncertainty in a predictive model’s output is how closely the output turns out to match reality. If you look at the first graph in this post, you will see that the only thing accomplished by adding the error ranges is to muddy the waters in evaluating how good the model is in accurately forecasting temperatures. Again, adding the uncertainty bars gives you no useful information on the threshold question of the accuracy of the model. They are just being used to excuse the fact that the models do not accurately simulate temperatures.

        Second, I don’t think there is a “known accuracy range” for a climate model’s input parameters. The input parameters are based on “scenarios” of what the modeler thinks CO2 emissions, volcanic eruptions, solar activity etc. will be in the future. Even acknowledging that past values of these actual inputs were likely measured with uncertain values, this measurement uncertainty would be dwarfed by the ranges of the different future scenarios, and would also be made moot by the uncertainty as to whether the model accurately simulates the behavior of the climate. In other words, the output uncertainty bars were pre-programmed into the computer.

        Finally, my understanding of the “uncertainty” ranges of the IPCC models is that it marks the boundary of the 95% range of all the model runs. I don;t think that the “uncertainty” bars reflects input imprecision since the modelers just assume scenarios in the first place.

    • Uncertainty also rises from the fact that we aren’t measuring the entire surface of the planet. We are only measuring points on the planet. The fewer the number of points being measured with respect to the total surface area and the greater the uncertainty, even if the actual sensors were perfectly accurate (which they aren’t).

  31. Not religious but I’m being converted by The Lord Monckton ,I must admit I used to believe the warming hype but to be fair (the evidence is in ) (the truth is undeniable) was catchy and when prime ministers and presidents and politicians of all persuasions spruiked it over and over I turned to the dark side .
    I must have heard the lord one day on Andrew Bolt and had a revelation ,this time I checked some facts ,checked hottest day on record and biggest storm ever claims and bugger me “they lied” and still do .
    After finding this site and checking some more I’m converted if for no other reason than “proof”
    As I’m finding out to my horror there is no evidence there is no proof and no smoking barrel, just a badly flawed prediction .

      • It is very good news that Robert has allowed the evidence to speak for itself and has followed where it leads. That is how science is done. I was also once prepared to accept that the profiteers of doom might be right: but, when I was given the opportunity to check the facts, I too found – ten years ago now – that all was not as it seemed. I changed my mind.

        John Maynard Keynes used to say: “If the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, Sir?” Robert and I have changed our opinion as the predictions have failed and the facts have changed. While there are people like Robert who are willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads, their intellectual honesty will preserve true science against its many racketeering enemies.

        Anyone who has read Einstein’s “Relativity Explained” cannot but be impressed with how single-mindedly he followed the evidence, even though his conclusions initially sounded mad. In any other branch of science but climastrology, predictive failure on the scale indicated in the head posting would have lead to much soul-searching among the modelers. As it is, they profit by predicting doom and are not prepared to put true science before fat profit.

    • Robert says
      “I must have heard the lord one day on Andrew Bolt and had a revelation ,this time I checked some facts ,checked hottest day on record and biggest storm ever claims and bugger me “they lied” and still do .”

      Good observation ….they must aim to appeal to people with a very short attention span.
      Check the facts and you will end up becoming a very determined climate alarm sceptic.

    • Yes, same goes here. I, like most everyone, never had time to get to grips with this large and complex topic and so always just assumed that all of those guys must be right. It was only because of the slow drip of water on stone that comes from the dedicated realists that encouraged me – when I had a small hiatus in work – to delve into it and have a look. What I slowly but inescapably came to see was just horrific and I at once felt an overwhelming sense of relief and laughter combined with absolute fury. The first person I came across delivering the sober reality was Prof. Judith Curry who has my undying gratitude for both honest appraisal with scientific integrity and extreme courage under withering fire.

  32. If you can “adjust” the data decades after the measurements were made then why not retrospectively adjust the predictions of the IPCC? Then everything will be accurate.

    • They have been doing this by lowering projections. The 1.5c 100 year projection is just that. To give their report an air of validity so they can say “we told you so”

      They also have papers for Australia, Queensland for more drought when there was drought there, and less drought, when Queensland had the floods.

      If you go look you can find claim and counter claim by the same field so they can say they have predicted any outcome.
      Maybe one can write an equation and call it “The climatological constant of hedging bets” or CCHB

  33. You must never trust consensus guidelines they are anti science. “Science is not about consensus. It’s about disproof, disbelief and skepticism. It’s not about consensus. When you’ve got consensus, you’ve got trouble”

  34. “One Dana Nuccitelli, a co-author of the 2013 paper that found 0.5% consensus to the effect that recent global warming was mostly manmade and reported it as 97.1%”
    If Nuccitelli has libelled Christy, then you have libelled Nuccitelli. You have claimed he misrepresented a 0.5% consensus as 97.1% There is no way that the results could reasonable be interpreted as a 0.5% consensus.

    To make it clear, the authors claim “Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

    See if you can convert that to 0.5%. Put your numbers up here and I will show you where you have gone wrong if you don’t already know.

      • The post you link to is one of the worst I have ever seen. It is full of errors and absurdities. Remember, we are trying to support the 0.5% figure. Bear in mind that the papers were not written with this survey in mind, and thus the vast majority would not be expected to make a specific claim on this question. Similarly it would not be expected that biology papers would specifically state they believed in evolution or physics papers to specifically state that the authors accepted relativity.

        Monckton says. “Among the relatively few abstracts (75 in total) falling in these two categories, 65 (87%) endorsed the consensus view.” From this series of admissions, it is evident that the authors of the Cook paper are now claiming 87% (not 97.1%) “scientific consensus”.

        No – it is really quite simple. They are counting categories 1-3 as supporting the theory, 4 as not agreeing nor disagreeing, and 5-7 as not agreeing. They are then making a separate comment about how many were in category 1 and 7 – similar to “strongly agree” and “strongly disagree” in surveys. Of these few that specifically say Yay or Nay, 87% say Yay. It is not possible to get 0.5% from this.

        Monckton cannot have it both ways. Either you discard all papers that do not specifically say yay or nay and you get 87%, or you include all the categories and you get 97%. You cannot get 0.5% by any reasonable method.

        Then there is this “There were 41 abstracts explicitly endorsing the IPCC’s version of consensus. But there were not only 9 in level 7 but also 54 in level 5 and 15 in level 6. Total sample size was thus only 119 out of 11,944 papers, or just 1% of an already smallish sample of the entire literature.”
        Why does he want to include categories 5 and 6 but not 2 and 3? This does not make sense. If you are going to count the 54 and 15 in levels 5 and 6, you must also count the 922 and 2910 in level 2 and 3. The fact is that 97% of those that were judged to have expressed an opinion said yay.

        Now, people have argued with the assessments – this that are said to expressed an opinion may not have. This is not what Monckton did in that post. However, for those that take that approach the self assessments also arrive at the same figure and are strong supporting evidence. Please how me how you can get 0.5% from the self assessed reports?

        No, it is unsupportable by any reasonable method that one could conclude 0.5%

      • seaice1:

        You say

        No, it is unsupportable by any reasonable method that one could conclude 0.5%

        You are right because – as is explained in the excellent essay which you excoriate – the correct figure is 0.3% (i.e. 41 papers out of a total of 11, 944 papers).

        Richard

      • Let me help a little more, Seaice1: You quoted Monckton and said he should have claimed 87%. What he went on to say was:

        From this series of admissions, it is evident that the authors of the Cook paper are now claiming 87% (not 97.1%) “scientific consensus” – but that they are doing so on the basis of a sample size that has shrunk from 11,944 to just 75 papers, arbitrarily and improperly eliminating 99.4% of the papers in the original sample. No scientific survey or opinion poll with a sample size of less than 1000 would normally be regarded as statistically significant.

      • Furthermore, Seaice1: Category 3 should not count ‘for’ AGW as it defines ‘implicitly endorsement’. “Implicit” is a subjective measure. It should not appear in science.

      • Richard. “You are right because – as is explained in the excellent essay which you excoriate – the correct figure is 0.3%”
        The headline says 0.5%, so you are arguing it is even less supportable than I claimed.

        Harry Passfield. “No scientific survey or opinion poll with a sample size of less than 1000 would normally be regarded as statistically significant.”
        Even if this were correct, the conclusion could never be 0.5%. If you were correct the conclusion would be 87%, but sample size too small to be significant.

        Mark: “When you cut out over 50% of papers, you cannot have anything more than the % left as agreeing.” Do you know how these surveys work? You don’t count papers that are in the original trawl but do not have anything to say about the subject. You want to count them as not agreeing, which is senseless.

      • seaice1 has tried to uphold the fatuous “97%” conclusion from Cook et al., but it is in reality indefensible, which is why Queensland Police told a leading citizen of Brisbane that a “deception” had been perpetrated.

        The facts are very simple and are undeniable. The usual definition of the proposition to which the “consensus” is said to adhere is that most of the small global warming in the few decades since 1950 was manmade. Cook et al. stated in the introduction to their paper that that was the definition they were using. Their data file listed only 64 papers, or 0.5% of the sample, as actually stating that recent warming was mostly manmade. Legates et al., 2013, read all 64 papers and found that only 41 of them, or 0.3% of the 11,944 abstracts Cook et al. said they had read, had in fact stated their support for the “consensus” proposition as Cook et al. had defined it.

        Yet their paper reported the “consensus” among the abstracts reviewed as 97.1%, and later stated on multiple occasions, including peer-reviewed papers and university press releases, that their survey had shown that 97% of the abstracts they had read had stated that recent warming was mostly manmade.

        The matter will soon be going before the criminal courts, so I cannot say any more than this. But I can say this much because it is already a matter of public record. We obtained and have carefully kept a copy of the datafile made by Cook et al. and listing not only all 11,944 papers but also Cook’s assignment of them to the seven “levels of endorsement” of the consensus proposition that they had defined. It was only no. 1 that covered explicit statements in the peer-reviewed papers to the effect that recent warming was mostly manmade. Cook et al. had themselves marked only 64 papers as falling within level 1.

        They misrepresented their results, even after they had been given clear warnings that they should desist. They will in due course be answerable for their defalcations.

    • When you cut out over 50% of papers, you cannot have anything more than the % left as agreeing.
      In other worse, Cook cut out over 50% of papers as having no opinion ergo less than 50% of remaining papers can agree, so max consensus would be 40+% So right there your argument falls to pieces.

      Secondly, activists rated papers like TV reports, and even disagreed with the scientists who authored the papers in oh so many papers and they changed the classifications after seeing the numbers.

      This is how a study should not be done.

      Then the claim 97% of scientists agree was 100% a false claim, Cook at best could claim a % of 45?% of paper abstracts reviewed agreed, nothing more.

      It was a psy op. A trick. Known all too well that the paper actually did not matter, all that mattered was the slogan “97% agree” because people latch onto rubbish like that, especially if it is in nice propagandist art form.

  35. I saw The Guardian yesterday, and chuckled as I saw that their global warming dogma still doesn’t prevent them from printing a whole separate travel section, encouraging their readers to jet off to various exotic locations around the world. Hypocrisy on stilts.

    The cutbacks they announced recently probably won’t affect Dana as he is clearly very cheap.

    • Hypocrisy is in their DNA. Funded by the sale of ‘Autotrader’ via ‘tax efficient’ offshore transactions. All of which would produce a torrent of abuse from the readers in any other circumstances. Mostly read by BBC, civil servants and low grade academics.

    • Sunday, February 21, 2016, 6:50 AM – Cyclone Winston, the most powerful storm ever recorded in the Southern Hemisphere, slammed into the Pacific island nation of Fiji this weekend. The Hottest , Coldest ,Most Snow ever , Most Rain and on and on. All Day All Night the sky is falling.

      • At least five killed by the most powerful storm on Earth. The warm waters around Fiji, at around 30oC, helped the storm intensify, and it boasted Category 5 winds of 287 km/h, gusting to more than 350 km/h, shortly before landfall on Fiji’s main island of Vitu Levu, whipping up wave heights around 12 m in some areas. I want the movie rights.

      • Russell may care to read the paper “Deterministic non-periodic flow”, published in a climate journal by the formidable climatological analyst Edward N. Lorenz, the father of numerical weather forecasting, and published in 1963. That was the paper that founded what is now known as chaos theory, though Lorenz did not use that term in his paper.

        In an object that behaves chaotically, such as the climate, records will frequently be broken. Cricket and, no doubt, rounders (which they call “baseball” in the U.S.) exhibits the same phenomenon. For this and other reasons, citing record-breaking weather events as evidence of a baneful anthropogenic influence on the climate is improper. Even the IPCC, in its Special Report on Extreme Weather (2012) and in its Fifth ASSessment Report (2013) gives explicit warnings against ascribing extreme-weather events to manmade global warming.

        Since the satellites show no global warming at all for getting on for two decades in the lower troposphere, where tropical cyclones chiefly reside, and since the ARGO bathythermographs show virtually no surface warming over the entire available 11-year record (such little warming as is occurring is at depth, where it cannot affect storminess), the one thing we know for certain is that global warming did not cause or intensify Cyclone Winston (or Pam, or Sandy, or Haiyan), for the good and sufficient reason that there has not been any.

        Furthermore, the global record of tropical cyclones (including hurricanes and typhoons) shows no trend throughout the era of observation, which dates back to the 1970s.

  36. @ jorgekafkazar
    February 20, 2016 at 9:51 pm

    The Grauniad has never been suitable for anything other than lining budgie cages.

    Not much use for that as it unfortunately it come pre packed with sh..

  37. {bold emphasis mine – John Whitman}

    Christopher Monckton,

    One Dana Nuccitelli, a co-author of the 2013 paper that found 0.5% consensus to the effect that recent global warming was mostly manmade and reported it as 97.1%, leading Queensland police to inform a Brisbane citizen who had complained to them that a “deception” had been perpetrated, has published an article in the British newspaper The Guardian making numerous inaccurate assertions calculated to libel Dr John Christy of the University of Alabama in connection with his now-famous chart showing the ever-growing discrepancy between models’ wild predictions and the slow, harmless, unexciting rise in global temperature since 1979.

    Christopher Monckton,

    Can you explain further the situation involving “leading Queensland police to inform a Brisbane citizen who had complained to them that a “deception” had been perpetrated”.

    I am intrigued.

    John

  38. All very well, m’lud, but I am sure you know as well as I do, that the Guardian is ALWAYS right. The same goes for the BBC. So good luck in puncturing their tiny little bubble of self-righteousness. The Guardian of course, is the English newspaper that is based in a tax haven, yet spends huge amounts of energy campaigning against companies based in tax havens. In other words, a bunch of total cnuts.

  39. Tidbits :In October, U.S. Steel Corp., the second-biggest steelmaker in the U.S., said a Canadian court approved an agreement to separate the operations of the Pittsburgh-based company from its Canadian unit. ERP Compliant is run by Tom Clarke, a Virginia hospital executive and Climate Change Activist. In addition to bidding on U.S. Steel Canada’s operations, Clarke has been scooping up mines from bankrupt coal producers Patriot Coal Corp. and Walter Energy Inc., betting he can help revive the struggling Appalachian region by selling coal bundled with carbon credits accrued by planting trees — something he thinks will appeal to utilities struggling to meet new environmental standards. This right out of the Bizarro World.

  40. Just as there is no automatic warning light to come on when newspapers decline to the point of tabloidism, the same is true of pseudoscience groupees.

  41. This brings up an interesting theoretical question. What would it take in the way of gross discrepancy between models and data for people like Nuccitelli to stop defending the former? Obviously the threshold is pretty high.

  42. Moderators, please remove Michael Hunt’s comment, which unreasonably exploits an illness from which I have suffered.

    [done, he’s in the bit-bucket. None of the words he used were in the bad word filter. They are now. What a hateful and juvenile comment from Mr. Hunt

    Mr. Hunt should look up Grave’s disease, and then if he’s any sort of a decent human being, issue an apology here -mod]

  43. Dana Nuccitelli. A brain dead cheerleader (or attack dog, as required) for the established climate dogma. Yeah, I really don’t think any further explanation of the problem is required. I’ve had dealings with this man. He has zero comprehension of the meaning of science nor does he have any compunction to engage in honest discourse.

    That the Guardian allows his words to be published says more about that newspaper than about his journalistic skills.

    This is neither ad hominem nor opinion. This is simple, verifiable fact.

      • Re; M. Weaver 2.25.16 09:25;

        No, that part was metaphorical. He is a very dim person with little actual concept of science or any type of actual math or physics. My post is factual; he does not understand that which he vehemently promulgates and strenuously attacks those who disagree with him. That is very factual. Have a conversation with the man. His concepts of heat and the laws of thermodynamics are at odds with anything that’s been taught as such in the last 200 years.

        I had an exchange with him one time where he absolutely demonstrated a lack of understanding of the first and second laws of thermodynamics as well as the very concept of heat (as in cold is the lack thereof).

        Now, I cannot imagine being so ignorant as that and having the gall to tell somebody that I know better than they about the topic of anthropogenic global warming? Well he did.

        So I paraphrased that as “brain dead”. A metaphorical device which I probably use too frequently.

Comments are closed.